Archive for January 2010

Attacks of Amnesia – Giuliani, Perino, Matalin

January 16, 2010

Not quite breaking news:  Rudy Giuliani has fallen victim to a sudden infestation of swine amnesia.  Unlike the former brain glitch of Mr. Guiliani, a rare “towerettes” symdrome which caused him to blurt out the numbers 9/11 every few moments, the new affliction has  caused his brain to blank out these numbers.  Symptoms were manifest recently during a televised discussion of the attempted Christmas day attack by Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in which Mr. Giuliani insisted that there had been no domestic terror attack under the presidency of George W. Bush.

Other victims of this amnesia appear to be Dana Perino, ex-press secretary to George Bush, and Mary Matalin, a former senior advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.

To give Ms. Perino the benefit of the doubt,  she may not have truly “forgotten” the attacks of 9/11, but have attempted to make a distinction between an attack carried out by a U.S. citizen, such as the shootings at Fort Hood, and attacks by foreign nationals.   (I’m sorry not to have done better research here—the tapes of people saying things like this make me too upset to spend a long time listening to them.)

Without wishing to diminish the horror of the terrible shootings at Fort Hood, I can’t help but remind Ms. Perino of the U.S.-born Beltway sniper,  John Allen Muhammed, who spread terror throughout Virginia and Maryland in 2002 (a Bush year).

Unlike Ms.  Perino,  Ms. Matalin seems to have simply “xed” out the first year of Bush’s presidency; her disorientation alloting it to the Clinton column.

All of these killings are horrible; the fact that they are used to score political points is itself a sickness.  Hopefully, this amnesia will not be contagious.  Unfortunately, Giuliani, Perino and Matalin, are already beyond cure.

Friday (At the Cathedral)

January 15, 2010

Because my brain was kind of dull today as I boarded the subway,  I thought simply of writing about “Friday”.

Friday was the day we had Cathedral services when I was in high school.  We wore blue green tweed jackets with a little insignia patch at the breast pocket, which were matched, on cold days, by plaid kilts, or tweedy a-lines; on warmer days, coupled with  seersucker dresses of regulation pink, green, blue, yellow.

It was a private school, with a vague (given that it was Episcopal) ecclesiastical bend.  The most important sign of that was our location, of course, on the grounds of a Cathedral, or, as it was called, the Cathedral “close.”

It was a genuine, or at least authentically copied, gothic cathedral.  Our Friday service was held in the nave.  While most of the high vaulted space was a soaring rebound of grey (stone and huge pillars of air surrounded by stone), the nave was carved from dark shiny wood.  It had an almost cozy, feel, like a breakfast nook in a mansion.  The pews of the knave sat in two or three rows that extended along its sides; hard and high-backed like the banquettes in a diner, they were stiff but comfortable, loungeable despite a design intended to enforce posture, smooth enough to accomodate sliding shifts of position.

It was a school service.  In a girls’ school.  So I can’t say that we were completely quiet.    Talking was was accomplished,  homework sneaked (though white blue-lined paper showed up pretty sharply against that deep dark wood.)  Still, there is something about a cathedral—did I mention the stained glass?—that enforces a hush.  (Even a whisper seems to echo in those tall stone spaces.)

Kids do not have very much of this kind of quiet today.  (Adults either.)  I’m not referring to the religious instruction, but to enforced (more or less) stillness.  No talk, no texting, no digital images, no electronic stimulation, no digital stimulation, no screen.  The primary excitement was the occasional standing hymn, which, due to Episocopal school traditions, was actually quite dramatic if you thought about the words.  We didn’t.  The meaning of all that soldiering and crusading passed us by, though the melodies were rousing enough.

Friday:  the morning began with an hour of drone and contemplation, music and bottom-shuffling, in a place where we could not help but feel small, caught between the heavy gravity of all that stone and wood, and the uplift of  glass-painted light.  Our heads, if not exactly bowed, were also not bombarded.

Afterward, we made our way across a large green lawn, the manic among us half-skipping beside our friends, the youngest holding hands.

Sad Day

January 14, 2010

Sad Day

All rights reserved.  Karin Gustafson.

Why I Like Rob Pattinson Better Than Pat Robertson

January 14, 2010

1.  He plays guitar.
2.  And piano.
3.  And not on the desperate wish of sometimes desperate people for a prescribed means of being safe in a unpredictable and unsafe world.
4.  He (Rob) readily acknowledges that the vast amount of admiration he receives is simply insane.
5.  When he says something deceptive, he is openly tongue-in-cheek.  (The doleful shakes of his head are accompanied by self-deprecating laughter.)
6.   He admits (at least,  in vampire persona) that no one can truly know the fate of souls.
7.  He admits (in every persona) that he’s an actor.
8.  I wouldn’t want to even think about whom Robertson might be secretly dating.
9.   And then, well, there’s the hair.

Robertson’s Rule of Unreason

January 13, 2010

Appearing on the Christian Broadcasting Network today to raise money for  Haiti, Pat Robertson gave, with conviction but seeming reluctance, an explanation for the long-term suffering of Haitians.  There was a reason, he said, that “people may not want to talk about.”

The problem, he went on, arose a long time ago when the Haitians were under the heel of the French, “Napoleon III or whatever,” and the Haitians “had gotten together” and made a “pact with the devil” to throw the French out of Haiti.  This pact had succeeded (in that the French were thrown out), but the Haitians had suffered ever since.

I’m glad that Robertson is raising funds to help Haiti, but he’s also just nuts.

Even on the most basic factual level, Robertson is wrong.  The revolt to which Robertson seems to refer was from the French under Napoleon I, that is, Napoleon Bonaparte, the guy with the hand in his waistcoat.   (Okay, okay, what’s in a roman numeral?)   As my husband who knows all things historical points out, the famous revolt against Napoleon III was in Mexico.  (Okay, okay, same hemisphere.)

The Haitian revolt against the French was also the first successful slave revolt in the New World, and led to the end of slavery in Haiti.  (Somehow, it’s hard to think of the ending of slavery as the product of a pact from the devil.)

Robertson’s “pact with the devil” seems to be inspired by the fact that the signal to start the rebellion was supposedly given, in 1791, by Dutty Boukman, a high priest of voodoo and leader of the Maroon slaves, during a nighttime religious ceremony.  (The French Revolution also influenced the rebels, but it’s my guess that it’s the voodoo ceremony that really gets to Robertson.)

I don’t pay a lot of attention to Robertson’s pronouncements, but even I have noticed a history of linking catastrophes to divine retribution.  In 2001, for example, he “totally” concurred with Jerry Falwell who said that Americans in favor of abortion, homosexuality and the separation of church and state had “helped” the World Trade Center attacks to happen by angering god.

What ever happened to the religious and philosophical conundrum of bad things happening to good people? (Was the 2004 Tsunami “helped” by Buddhism?  Is “don’t ask don’t tell” responsible for the casualties in Iraq?)

Robertson’s God seems to punish with a very broad brush.  (The problem of a fly in the ointment is resolved by the burning down of the whole pharmacy.  Serves those prescription drug users right.)

Yes, Haiti may lie upon a fault in tectonic plates, but whose fault is that?

On the good side ( the New Testament, turn-the-other-cheek side), Robertson does seem to want alleviate the  suffering of poor people.  Still one can’t help but hope that Jeudy Francia, the woman, in Port-au-Prince, who cried “there is no one, nothing, no medicines, no explanations for why my daughter is going to die,” has not had to bear the additional misery of hearing Robertson’s reasons for her pain.

Joe Rollino – Bending Minds As Well As Quarters

January 12, 2010

Is it too late?  Should I see my dentist first?

Here’s the big question:  is it the bending of quarters with one’s teeth that leads to a sprightly 104, or is it the ability to bend quarters with one’s teeth?  Or is it the wacky bravura that thinks up the idea of bending quarters with teeth and then actually tries it?

I like cold water.  I even swam at Coney Island (okay, dunked) on January 1, 2009 when it was 18 degrees on the beach.  But as I contemplate whether it’s worth going out there this weekend, the question once again comes to mind:  is it the swimming every single day for 8 years that leads to long-lived gusto? Or the gusto that gets you into that water in the first place?  (And also saves you from all the bacteria? )

The great Coney Island strongman, Joe Rollino, died yesterday (January 11, 2010) at 104, hit by a minivan, walking his typical five miles a day, somehow too far from a crosswalk, too close to the road.

A wonderful obituary in the New York Times describes Rollino bending a quarter with his teeth at 103, and shows him at age 10, already buff and tendon-y.   At age 89, he kept four motorcycles stationary at full throttle for twelve seconds.

He was a relatively small for a strong man, so seemed driven towards creative stunts to prove his strength.  (Lifting 685 pounds with one finger.)  Somehow the ability to come up with zany, but impressive, tricks seems almost as integral to Rollino’s youthful aging as the discipline that gave him the strength to do those tricks.  (No meat, no cigarettes, no alcohol.)

You almost feel that at, a slightly younger age (say 98), he might have been able to stop that minivan.  With one hand.

Amazing Sight on Isle of Wight! (Robsten Above the Radar!)

January 12, 2010

Breaking news!  Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart sighted together on a New Year’s getaway outside a grocery store in Ventnor, a small British resort (which sounds suspiciously like a property on the Monopoly board), on the Isle of Wight.

Hope is not lost!  After weeks of worldwide speculation, then doubt, then near silence (and possibly despair),  proof has finally been found that a young handsome movie star will fall in love with a young beautiful movie co-star.  (What a revelation!)

Though apparently on a secret hideaway, the couple generously, but separately, posed for pictures with a local resident.  These pictures were then, somehow, posted on a local blog, which led to island’s immediate infestation by teenage girls:  “all the young girls have been trying to find him,” said store manager Jez Harmer. “They have been out on a hunt.”

No luck for these fans, however.  “It’s literally a mystery,” Harmer said.

The mystery Harmer was referring to is not quite clear–that the fans descended so quickly?  Where Robsten has gone?  That they posed for pictures in the first place?

Soon after the sighting on Wight, internet “news” sources wrote that Robsten was planning to buy a house on Ventnor.  (Just like in the game.)

Miep Gies, Protector of Anne Frank, Lives A Hundred Years

January 11, 2010

Miep Gies, protector of Anne Frank, died today (January 11, 2010), at the age of 100.

I remember her from Anne Frank’s diary; she was the one whose name I had no clue of how to pronounce, (whom I always called the “M-one” in my many devoted readings of the book).   She seemed so young, lively, enterprising, in the diary, bringing Anne and her family whatever sparse treats and necessities could be found and smuggled in by someone inventive and brave.

Reading the news of Mrs. Gies’ death, I felt amazement,  first, that she had been alive all this time,  not only someone who had actually known Anne, but the woman who had preserved Anne’s diary.

The second, and deeper, amazement arose at the thought that Mrs. Gies had lived at all.

It made me think (strangely) of years I had spent in Brooklyn, some time ago, with very difficult neighbors.  For the sake of this post, I’ll call them “Pat and Mike.”  Pat and Mike were not bad people;  they could be jolly, they certainly had friends.  Unfortunately, they didn’t count my husband and me among their friends.  We are both friendly, and we had two beautiful tiny children (well, soon, after moving in, we had two beautiful tiny children).

Still, Pat and Mike could not be won over.  For one thing, my husband and I were artists (or, at least my husband was an artist) and he had converted a storefront space from an active business (a flower shop) to an art studio (which, to Pat and Mike, made the space look unpleasantly abandoned.)

Additionally, we were new to the neighborhood (they’d lived there all their lives.)  We seemed young to own a building;  they imagined our youth to mean that we were financially spoiled (we did have help from our parents).  Worst of all, we rented an apartment that was at the top of our little building to an inter-racial couple.  This was particularly upsetting to Pat and Mike who viewed our particular block as being “the line” between a poorer black and Hispanic neighborhood, which held a large public housing project, and a neighborhood that was largely working/middle class and Italian.  Pat and Mike, who sat on lawn chairs in front of their own small building all day long, every day, viewed themselves as personally holding this line.  They watched the street like literal (if sunburnt) hawks, Pat especially, whose sharp nose, and heavily made-up eyes, gave her a raptor’s profile.

Generally furious at us, Pat and Mike looked for every possible specific transgression.  Our children’s drawing with chalk on the sidewalk led to a call to the police. An attempt to install a wood-burning stove in the back of my husband’s studio quickly generated a raft of complaints and threats.  Even a tree planted in front of our building was quickly chopped down by Mike, before it had a chance to sprout leaves which might flutter onto their property and lead to pedestrian slippage and law suits.  Before another tree could be planted, Mike poured cement into the plot (our plot).

No charges were ever pressed by either side. But sometimes our dealings with Pat and Mike made me think about Miep, and the others she worked with, to hide the Franks.  Of course, it’s a completely silly comparison (and it had nothing to do with our particular tenants.  We didn’t rent to them as a political statement;  they were simply the best candidates for the apartment.)   Still, it was perhaps the first time I could palpably imagine what it might be like to face the scrutiny of angry, sniping, busybodies.

One likes to think that one would be brave in a totalitarian society; that one would save the persecuted.  But I suddenly understood how many Pat and Mikes a totalitarian society might hold, just watching, watching, just waiting to turn you in.  In that kind of situation, under that kind of scrutiny, would I really be brave enough to put myself at risk?  And what about my two small children?  Would I put them a risk too?

In addition to shielding the eight people in the annex above Otto Frank’s business, Mrs. Gies and her husband hid an anti-Nazi university student in their own apartment.  Mrs. Gies was working in the Frank’s office when the Gestapo came (because of an anonymous tip), and was apparently spared arrest because of a shared Austrian heritage with one of the Nazi agents.  Later, however, she went to the Gestapo in Amsterdam to try, without success, to offer a bribe for the release of the eight whom she had hidden.

Anne Frank’s diary is a testament to suffering and transcendence.  Mrs. Gies was a link to that suffering and transcendence but also personified it.   In her memoir, “Anne Frank Remembered,” published in 1987, Ms. Gies wrote, “not a day goes by that I do not grieve for them.”  So many days.  So sad that they’ve come to an end.

Icy Cold

January 10, 2010

Icy Cold

Too cold for dogs, elephants, ManicDDaily.

If you like your elephants warmer, check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson.

Blocking Re-Writer’s Block. Keep the Faith. And the Moocow.

January 9, 2010

I have written several posts in the past about blocking writer’s block.  (If you are interested, these can be found by clicking the category “writer’s block” from the ManicDDaily home page.)

I am extremely lucky that I don’t typically suffer from writer’s block.  I can usually write something. The quality of that something may not be great, but I can put words down on the page.   A harder problem is re-writing.

The wonderful glow that comes from a first draft, or even a first edit, is generally not available in the hard, repetitive, slog of revising a major project.   When one first writes something, one often feels happy simply at finding coherence, flow.  For someone who grew up before the days of the computer, there’s a wonder simply in seeing one’s thoughts set out in typeface (rather than scribble).

But as one’s investment and expectations grow, the re-writing can become onerous.  Questions plague every re-writing session.  They tend to run along the lines of:

1.  What else can you cut?   (It’s still too wordy, boring.)

2.  Have you cut too much?  (You’ve squeezed all the life out.)

3.  Are you really making it better?

4.   How can this take so much time?

5.  It was a dumb idea to begin with.  (And that’s not even a question.)

6.   Maybe you should just quit.  (After all this time?)

Avoiding the burden of extensive revision is one of the joys of a daily blog.  (While you have to worry about coming up with something all day long, at least you know you won’t have much time to re-write it!)

But if you are a attempting a novel, a story, even a poem, you usually have to rework it quite a bit.   And, unless you are lucky enough to have a deadline and an editing staff, this process simply takes as long as it takes (often long enough for you to get thoroughly sick of it).

Sometimes you have to cut out whole sections, sections that you have labored over for weeks, sections that you had a particular love for.  (These may be the most suspect.)  You will feel a bit like you are working on a  crossword, and a whole corner needs to be erased.  (Only, frankly, you’ll likely feel much much worse.)

For me, the most important rule in re-writing is simply to keep faith with yourself.  You must be open to cutting, but if you constantly question the worth of your entire project, you will not be able to go through the hard slog of making it better.

Perhaps the concept is not worthy of James Joyce.  (But remember, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, begins: “once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road…”  This, though recognized as great prose now, undoubtedly took a fair amount of ego and faith on Joyce’s  part.)

Even so, you must accept that you write about the kinds of things that you write about.   Even the moocows.  (Especially the moocows.)

Try, at least, to make your writing the best that it can be before giving into the urge to throw it away.   (Even then, keep the moocow.)